"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> dh@. wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 4 Sep 2006 19:36:31 -0700, "Rupert" >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I hope people will make a sincere effort to find out the truth of
>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >matter. Diderot's account may or may not be correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
>> >> >> largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
>> >> >> semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the
>> >> >> numbers i
>> >> >> have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for
>> >> >> machine-farmed
>> >> >> organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas." -
>> >> >> diderot
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >sort of presumption
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >against killing sentient animals. You have no reason
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to think anyone
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >animals are killed
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >in the course of rice production.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> opposed to seeing
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >What reason?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The opposition you people have presented to seeing it
>> >> >> >> >> >> pointed out.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Duh.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people
>> >> >> >> >> >believe
>> >> >> >> >> >Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they
>> >> >> >> >> >respond
>> >> >> >> >> >accordingly.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> They don't correct him.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >They have taken issue with certain things he said.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No one has even tried to correct him and tell us how many
>> >> >> >> animals
>> >> >> >> are actually killed in rice production,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That's because they don't know. You can criticize what he says
>> >> >> >without
>> >> >> >coming up with estimates of your own.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You don't want to believe what he has learned from first hand
>> >> >> experience, so you just say it isn't true.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, I do not say this. I do not know whether it is true or not.
>> >> >Others
>> >> >who have denied some of the things he said have argued for their
>> >> >position.
>> >> >
>> >> >> What reason would a
>> >> >> man who farms organic rice have for lying and saying there are
>> >> >> MORE deaths involved than there really are? We know why
>> >> >> Lunberg and "pearl" would lie and say there are fewer, but why
>> >> >> would diderot lie and say there are more?
>> >> >
>> >> >Someone concerned to undermine the ethical vegetarian position might
>> >> >deliberately exaggerate the harm involved in rice farming.
>> >>
>> >> People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
>> >> but they remain facts none the less.
>> >
>> >People make claims, which some ethical vegetarians dispute.
>>
>> Here's another fact that "ethical" veg*ns hate: Some livestock
>> have lives of positive value. Here's another: The lives of animals
>> raised for food should be given as much or more consideration
>> than their deaths.
>>
>
> Yes, well we've discussed this before. The argument that if livestock
> have sufficiently good lives, this justifies bringing them into
> existence, inflicting painful mutilations on them without anaesthetic,
> and killing them for food, is not a "fact" that ethical vegans hate, it
> is a highly contentious and disputed argument. An important point to
> address is: would it be permissible to do the same thing to humans, and
> if not, what's the morally relevant difference?

The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
what-have-you.

> I really had a tough
> time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
> seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.

There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed, as I have said to you
before, the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.